The Bulger killers: was justice done?

[WannaBeWonderWoman]

Following on from previous thread which was filled.

What would have been the correct way to deal with these little boys who subjected a tiny two year old to protracted agony and unimaginable suffering then?

Interested to know what all the bleeding hearts on here believe should have happened? Whether they attended an adult court and were convicted of murder which they confessed to anyway, was this crueller to them than what they put that child through? They were well treated and even when they were serving their 'sentence' they were protected and given all they wanted (more than they would have got if they'd been in their own homes probably) and had all the help and therapy it was possible to give them. Did they suffer? You could actually argue that they benefitted from killing. They have to live with what they've done, yes, but if they did I find it hard to comprehend that Thompson especially (who came across as the leader in the interviews) can.

The Norwegian case which is often compared to this is nowhere similar IMO. The perpetrators were a similar age to their victim. They were 6 which is almost half the age V&T were and they wouldn't have been tried here anyway. Most importantly that crime was not premeditated or drawn out for hours like the many horrors inflicted on James.

He was the only victim here.

I read the article. The only "interesting" thing about it was that (s)he couldn't find anything bad to say about him, although (s)he did try and make that sound sinister. Actually it didn't seem to be an interview with someone who knew him at all.

That’s the thing, isn’t it? Do we want rehabilitation or punishment for children so young who have committed such a horrendous crime? It’s not possible to do the former properly in a secure environment or the latter if they are released at 18.

Why aren't we allowed to see what the scumbag looks like now, just like with anyone else?

Because if we were it is probable that someone would at least attempt to murder him. In this country even the very worst criminals aren't abandoned to the mercy of mob mentality.

Or attempt to murder someone who they think looks like him. Mobs not being known for their critical thinking skills.

I don't think the Home Secretary should have got involved in the way he did with the tariff. That's partly behind the feeling, that can never be changed, that justice wasn't done. That 15 years was seen and then when it was changed it gave a feeling of getting away with it. He was simply courting political gain in the build up to a general election and that should never, ever have been part of this case.

I think that giving an 8 year minumim tariff showed that the judge took all the facts of the case into account, including the age of the two killers. Having the minimum sit around the time they'd need to be moved from a juvenile facility makes sense when the point of the prison system is rehabilitation. They should have been properly assessed at that point and then decisions made. I don't think they should have been released at the same time given they have clearly different experiences and have grown up very differently. They should have been assessed on individual merit and dealt with individually.

If they did what they did to one of mine I'd absolutely be baying for their blood, but that's precisely why the families, and the public to an extent, shouldn't have control over that.

Venables should now be in prison for a long time. Not solely because of what he did then, but because he is on a life license and has breached it twice for serious crimes (for me watching and downloading child abuse images is not dealt with serious enough). He should not be released until he is considered not a danger.

Makes me sick Venables identity is still protected. He's been convicted of NEW crimes. IMO that should override the protection. Why aren't we allowed to see what the scumbag looks like now, just like with anyone else? do you know who the other men are who will have been convicted of child sex offences this week and what they look like?

Had these boys not been named at the time when they were ten year olds there would have been no need for new identities etc. But because some judge in his infinite wisdom decided to publicise the names of ten year old children we are faced with a situation 25 years down the line where those individuals need to be protected as adults. Not only for themselves, but their families as well.

Imagine for instance if either of them were to have a child, Mary Bell does for instance, do you think that child should be accountable for what their parent did all those years ago and should face the vigelanti mobs who think that the parents’ identities should be made public? Because the types of people who enact their own justice on their assumed behalf of the victims and society aren’t generally the types who care who gets hurt in the process.

Also, knowing who he is would also put Venables at risk in prison. And before anyone suggests that it would be no more than he deserved, let’s also remember that the other prisoners are hardly upstanding members of society just wanting to look out for the innocent. They are also there for their own reasons, some of which may be far worse and far more recent than what Venables did in his past.

I think the question of the new names is a whole other thread. It's understandable why it was done in this case, and that of Mary Bell, but it does throw up questions about the rights of someone who meets someone under one of these orders and when/if they should have the right to know who they are dating/sleeping with/marrying.

do you know who the other men are who will have been convicted of child sex offences this week and what they look like?

No but people will know their names and if they had reason to suspect, could find out about them. Unlike with people that have their identity changed and protected ... not hard to understand is it?

Takemedown A court decision to release JV's current appearance would equate to state incitement to murder, and it would endanger the life of every man who looks like Jon Venables' current photograph. That is what would happen. You know it, I know it, Joey Essex probably knows it.

You may personally feel his life is worth nothing, but I think the lives of men who arent' him but look like him are worth something.

The police manhours it will take to investigate the murders and assaults that would result are worth something.

The emotional wellbeing of the families of anyone who would murder JV, given the chance, is also worth something.

I was very, very, very distantly connected with someone who committed murder, in a I-know-the-sister-of-his-wife's-best-friend kind of way. I never met him at all, that's how distant it was, and yet it was still visible to me what an impact his deeds had on everyone he knew. When he committed murder, he didn't just blow a hole in the lives of everyone who knew and cared about the victim, he set off a bomb in his own and his whole friendship circle. The collateral damage to them all was immense.

It is a matter of public duty that his identity be kept entirely secret.

My understanding is that they were tried in an adult court. They were sentenced to eight years in youth offending. This wasn’t exactly solitary confinement or hard labour. It was where they had therapy and were allowed certainly more luxuries and privileges than in an adult prison/institution and certainly probably more comforts than some children in poor families in the 90s.

So those of you complaining about them being tried at an adult court, what would you have hoped for in a youth court? Even less than eight years?

These two took a toddlers life, after they tortured and sexually assaulted him, dropped bricks on him, put paint in his eyes. While he was screaming for his mother. James was two years old. Denise has to live with this and she will never see her sons face again and she knows the agony and fear he died in.

Is there anyone really who thinks they should have had less than eight years and been treated more leniently by a youth court. Really? I can’t imagine why anyone would think this.

I’ve been pondering this over the last few days but still don’t know where I am on the spectrum of punishment versus rehabilitation. If it was the case of a 10 year old shop lifting, I’d be fully on the side of rehabilitation versus punishment but this was such a horrific crime, i think it has to be treated differently. If the boys had killed through an accident or by getting carried away and losing it, I could still get behind rehabilitation. But, they were unimaginably and sickeningly cruel. They sought out a victim unable to defend himself and were very calculating and deliberate. They did something so vile, the murder would have always been notorious even if it had been committed by an adult.

As an aside, It must have been very hard working with those boys in the unit. I couldn’t have looked at them, let alone try to help them lead a normal life. The social workers that do that job must be under such pressure and emotional load.

I think the question of the new names is a whole other thread. It's understandable why it was done in this case, and that of Mary Bell, but it does throw up questions about the rights of someone who meets someone under one of these orders and when/if they should have the right to know who they are dating/sleeping with/marrying.

The terms of their licence require disclosure of identities to people they have a relationship with

tengreen please point out where anyone on this thread feels they should have served less than eight years?

I think they should have been tried in a youth court because they were 10. Not because I think the sentance should have been any different.

I think all children 16 and under should be tried in youth courts.

Mumsnet is a funny place. Full of people who cut up grapes for their 10 year olds in case they choke, or say they're too young to walk to school themselves. Who will run round after their 17/18 year olds as if they were toddlers cause that's how they act. Yet they'd see someone elses 10 year old tried as an adult and hung.

If having limitless sympathy for James and his parents and understanding that no punishment of the perpetrators will ever come anywhere near to being sufficient in their eyes given what they have suffered, while at the same time being concerned at how the legal process and society dealt with the matter makes me a bleeding heart, I’ll take it.

I thought one of the people speaking on the Bulger programme made a really good point that if the boys had committed the murder while they were 9 so a matter of months before they wouldn’t even have been able to be prosecuted. So it’s a civilised legal system that goes from that to being locked up for life aged 10? Really?

I think they were rightly tried, convicted and sentence. The legal process that tried them was not fit for purpose and so rightfully that was pointed out by the ECHR and if it means changes are made for future child accused all well and good. People do understand that if accuse persons don’t get a fair trial it can mean guilty people getting off with crimes? Surely putting the measures in place to make sure that all accused including children receive fair trials is sensible.

On paper, no I didn’t think 8 years was anywhere near a long enough sentence, but given the alternative was them going to an adult prison and the risk of the huge amount of work that had been done with them unravelling ultimately it was IMO the right decision to release them. I doubt very much release was a walk in the park, having to change identity, move away from the area they grew up in, knowing that chances of ‘normal’ life including a relationship and children were extemely slim. I don’t say that out of any sympathy for the boys but just as a counter to all the mass hysteria.

I also think on balance it would have been better for them not to have been named.

It seems now I would say that Venables is beyond rehabilitation. Whether he feels remorse for the murder none of us know. The judge I am sure had his hands tied by sentencing rules but I think probably now consideration should be given to revoking his life licence and also given that he’s now a grown man I don’t think he should be given any further new identities (I think he’s already had a few).

lalalalyra I think the thing with meeting new partners and their right to know and so on is something we will never likely understand because far too little is known about the scheme to change people’s identity (and remember that identities can be changed in regards to e.g.things like witness protection as well so it’s not always to bad people but it is generally for bad reasons iyswim with potentially disasterous consequences if those identities are revealed.)

But I imagine that there are some protocols surrounding potential partners and their being informed which possibly make finding a partner at all very difficult to near impossible, not only for someone who has committed a crime but also to someone who is under witness protection. After all, you could be putting your children at just as much risk if you get together with someone who is under the witness protection scheme if those who they are being protected from should happen to find them, and there would be the matter of e.g. children not being able to be photographed publicly etc etc.

I’d imagine that potential partners do know some detail but it’s impossible to know what without knowing more about the scheme.

Yes - just a few months younger and they wouldn’t/ couldn’t have been charged

Well I read that DM article, quite ridiculous. The SW was clearly trying to get his 15 minutes of fame, very unprofessional. It doesn't prove anything about whether T has been rehabilitated or not.

The one thing that is clear is that T is bright, why does that apparently make him sinister??

31 children murdered by a parent/s in 2015 in the UK. Know any of their names or the names of their killers? Even with Google I think you'd struggle to find all of them.

Their killers will be released from prison at some point. It will go unnoticed by the media and public. There won't be demands to publish their photos.

Why not a public outcry about them?

The horrendous acts of two children will always be remembered along with their names and they are seen as worse than adults that kill their own children or indeed any adult that kills a child thanks to a media campaign and shitty decisions by government officials.

I agree. And whether he feels remorse for his actions or not, he clearly can't control them. He's harmed a child/ children 3 times now and that should be the end - full life term. Actually I'd have been happy with that the second time round.

The terms of their licence require disclosure of identities to people they have a relationship with.

That didn't stop Venables previously hiding a relationship with a woman with a young child from his probation officers for a number of months. And even if a relationship was known about at what stage would his identity be revealed? After a certain number of months or when there was talk of moving in together? What if a woman became pregnant by Venables in the meantime and then his true identity was revealed.

Anonymity in the community should never be awarded to those who've committed such a calculated and serious crime as the torture and murder of James. The potential repercussions for unsuspecting members of the public, off their guard, are far too great.

@Cuppaoftea that's the problem. The change of identity means that a potential partner with children has no way of knowing anything about their past. They can't look up the name under Sarah's law.

But that's the fault of the judge who revealed their identities in the first place.

Theoretically, they could keep him in for life. I doubt they will though, unfortunately.

He should get an indeterminate prison sentences, now that he has quite clearly demonstrated that he is a risk to society.
I do not agree with others who say that they should have been tried as adults for the original murder. You would be absolutely crazy to sentence a child to life imprisonment.

*I’d imagine that potential partners do know some detail but it’s impossible to know what without knowing more about the scheme.
*

It's at the parole board's discretion whether to intervene. The Omand report said they did not tell Venables' partner of 7 months (who had a young child) who he was, and encouraged him to break it off instead.

@ChaosNeverRains It's just so complex. It must be a nightmare job to work with.

I mean, you don't want them (regardless of why they have a new identity) telling people left, right and centre who they really are, but when is the time that it has to be done?

It must be something that has to be worked out on an as and when basis, but that also puts that human element into it again and people can get it wrong. You couldn't have a set "once you've been in a relationship for 6 months" rule because relationships progress differently.

I guess that also shows how some of the restrictions are difficult/impossible to police. Venables was banned from using the internet. If you had a new bf in this day and age who couldn't book a hotel online or order food from justeat/deliveroo or even order an online shop you'd quickly think they were a bit odd. So, that means he's either likely to bend the rules occasionally "I had to use the internet to book the hotel room as she suggested or my identity was at risk" which no doubt encourages other odd/occasional breaches of rules.